The fundamental lie of complementarianism?

You may be interested in the ongoing discussion between Jeremy Pierce and myself in comments on my Gentle Wisdom post Complementarianism: Sola Scriptura or Sola Traditio? Here is a taster:

Jeremy, concerning a view which he attributes to most complementarians:

[The third view] insists that neither set of roles is better than the other

My response:

This in my view is the fundamental immorality, the fundamental lie of complementarianism. Everyone knows instinctively that leadership and teaching roles are in some sense “better” than other roles. This is one of our cultural presuppositions, but it is one which is upheld in the Bible, which teaches explicitly, in 1 Timothy 3:1 (church leadership), James 3:1 (teaching), 1 Corinthians 14:5 (prophecy in the church assembly) etc, that such roles are good and should be aspired to. But what has happened is that some men have decided to restrict these roles to themselves and restrict women to roles which are generally considered to be of lower status - and have then tried to justify this by redefining generally understood notions of status, in a way which fools absolutely no one, except apparently you, Jeremy. I’m sorry, leadership has not suddenly lost its high status because Grudem, Piper etc say so, especially when the apostle Paul says the opposite.